When you run a linter, for example, then it should stop executing cider once it stops. And not be able to spawn long-running background tasks for infiltration.

E.g. when working on a frontend only project, you don't need to mount the backend directory and vice-versa. This limits the attack radius.

I run it in an ephemeral container sandbox (https://github.com/ashishb/amazing-sandbox) which has access to the current working directory and it drastically limits the attack radius.

When you are invited to someone's living room, you don't get to access their bedroom.

The idea that Claude should have full data access to the home directory is wrong. And as an industry leader, Claude has set a bad precedence.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50052065

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

It is fairly useless if you want to run a random tool like a linter on a random file(s)

Indeed, I run all dev tools including coding agents inside sandbox now

https://github.com/ashishb/amazing-sandbox

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49770704

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

LLMs made it way worse https://ashishb.net/tech/react-native/

One should sandbox all npm command executions.

https://github.com/ashishb/amazing-sandbox

Historically, everything you ran was trustworthy.

Android and iOS were invented in an era that does not allow this because the risks became evident by then.

Yes, any tool, including any coding agent, has access to all files $USER has access to.

Sandbox it explicitly to give access to only the current directory - https://github.com/ashishb/amazing-sandbox

The level of phoneticism between English language and its latin script is not evenly spread.

For example, the letter "c" might mean /s/ or /k/ sound. However, the letter "k" almost certainly means /k/ sound.

In some ways, the schwa sound in English the worst as there is no symbol which is committed even partially towards it.

> it is Rāma, and 'a' represents the schwa.

Sure, but if my name is Rāma, I have to choose either "Ram" or "Rama" or "Raama" for my passport name. Or legal name in most places, non-alphabetic symbols do not work with all modern systems.

> Many other languages using the Latin script (German, Italian, Finnish) don't have this problem, what you see is what get.

English imports spellings from other cultures and adds its own layer of pronunciations. Other languages probably don't do it as often.

It is neither.

The fundamental issue is that there is no way to represent the schwa sound in English[1]. All of a,e,i,o,u have been used to communicate the schwa (or schwa-like) sound in English.

  - The `a` in about
  - The `e` in taken
  - The `i` in cousin
  - The `o` in button
  - The `u` in upon

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48955979

Points: 8

# Comments: 0

Heck, I even wrote a player for this [1] The problem is that licensed media like this are always going to become inaccessible over decades.

It happened with Apple[2] and Microsoft (PlaysForSure[3]) as well.

1 - https://musicsync.ashishb.net/ 2 - https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/you-dont-own-your-di... 2 - https://www.cnet.com/culture/playsforsure-officially-dead/

I gave a specific example where neither the coffee wholesaler nor the buyer probably operates day to day in English. But they would still use English for the official agreement.

That does not take away from other benefits of English like being spoken by millions as a primary language and probably billions as a second language

I think, and it is just my speculation, that for most of Indian History, Sanskrit was the link language.

Just like "Latin" in the USA and Europe of the early 17th and 18th centuries, when all academic instructions were carried out in Latin!

So, nobody used Sanskrit as the primary language, but everyone could or knew someone who could convert Sanskrit to the local dialect.

It is almost like how Chinese and Colombian traders might sign a contract for coffee purchase in English. Neither might use English in most of their daily operations.

There is no official "Prakrit", by definition of the term itself. "Prakrit" just means "natural" and the way I understand it, was the term for all colloquial dialects/languages across India.

"Sanskrit", on the other hand, meant "cultured" and its grammar, at least for the last 2500 years, is strictly defined by Panini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%AD%C4%81dhy%C...)